DOCSLIB.ORG

Sociality and Altruism Sociality and Social Behavior Recalling The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sociality and Altruism Sociality and Social Behavior Recalling The Two examples of costly sociality from Alcock 1998 Sociality and Altruism Sociality and Social Behavior Ovicidal female Broadly-defined: any non-solitary behavior acorn woodpeckers Overview: The Spectrum of social behavior, broadly defined: •Some costs of social behavior •From “simple” conspecific interactions such as •Imply importance of demonstrating benefits encounters between territory owners and intruders •To highly organized eusocial systems (honeybees) •Assumption of genetic basis •Direct selection, Indirect selection Human bias in thinking about social systems: •Types of social interaction in terms of costs/benefits •Highly organized social behavior and social living are “more evolved” in some way •Mutual versus Selfish versus Altruistic behaviors •This is a bias because it is what we do •Explaining altruistic behavior •Nothing says evolution should proceed toward greater social organization •Quick dispatch of Group Sel’n and Recip. Altru. •Kin Selection •Social Organization may incur high costs: Parasite-harboring cliff-swallows •Inclusive fitness •Hamilton’s Rule •Bottom Line: To explain social living and social behavior you must be very clear about the fitness benefits of sociality to individuals Recalling the Genetic Cost/Benefit classification of Explaining Altruistic Behavior Perspective social behaviors THE BIG QUESTION: How could a behavior Big assumption underlying the evolutionary Social behaviors can be characterized as which reduces the fitness of an individual ever ecology perspective on social behavior: interactions between “Self” and “Neighbor” •Behaviors in question have a genetic basis •Four main types based on cost or benefit to self evolve in a population? •For behaviors to increase in frequency in populations or neighbor: the genes controlling them must make it to future THREE PROPOSED EXPLANATIONS: generations at a higher than average rate Effect On Neighbor 1. Group Selection (a largely discredited •How do these behaviors “help those genes along” to the hypothesis) next generation? Imagine an individual named Fred: +– (a) Direct Selection: Fred’s genes make him behave in such a way as to increase the chances of passing on his Mutually 2. Reciprocal Altruism (a game theoretic genes (i.e. of having more offspring) OR in such a + Beneficial Selfish notion with little empirical support) way as to increase the chances of Fred’s offspring surviving to pass on their genes. 3. Kin selection (a fairly widely-accepted This promotes the direct fitness of the genes Mutually influencing Fred’s behavior Altruistic Disadvantageous hypothesis based on genetic arguments and Effect On Self – (b) Indirect Selection: Fred’s behavior promotes the indirect selection) fitness of individuals who are not his offspring, BUT those individuals happen to carry copies of Fred’s genes (because they may share a common ancestor) • MB and S are easily explained via natural selection This leads to indirect fitness benefits. • MD ought not be very frequent • Altruistic behavior is the tough one to explain Note: Altruistic behavior doesn’t mean “consciously altruistic” as in “Oh! You’re such an altruist!” A Brief History of Group Critical Reassessment of Before getting to kin-selection, however, we investigate Reciprocal Altruism Selection Group Selection (Trivers) Reciprocity: a mechanism by which altruistic behavior Basic Premise of Group Selection: the Wynne-Edwards (early 1960’s) stimulated a great deal of might be maintained by increasing the direct fitness of the “evolutionary battleground” is the space of all separate criticism of group selection individual behaving altruistically populations (groups) of organisms. The “winners” and “losers” in this evolution match are the populations Oddly, Wynne-Edwards was a great proponent of GS Direct Fitness is increased because the recipient of the (groups) themselves. •Natural Regulation of Population size altruistic behavior “returns the favor later” •“Saw its (GS’s) magnificent consequences so “You rub my back and I’ll rub yours” Contrast to Individual Selection within a population universally that evolutionary ecologists were forced to consider the argument more carefully.” --Ricklefs Requires that the cost for the giver is less than the benefit The first Group-Selection Argument was formed by for the recipient Darwin in his On the Origin of Species to explain features Huge Backlash!! of sterile worker bees: Problem: Single or Few Interactions: Game theory shows How could features of “good” sterile workers be Criticisms of Group Selection: cheaters can easily invade a population of reciprocators: acted upon by natural selection if they don’t leave any 1. Most organisms don’t organize themselves into “You rub my back and I’ll say I’ll rub yours, but I’ll really offspring? groups the way that they would have to for Group leave town before I do” Selection to be effective Darwin: “By the survival of communities with females 2. The time scale for group selection is slow---much Possible Solution: Repeated interaction makes it harder to which produced most neuters having the advantageous slower than for individual selection within cheat successfully. modification, all the neuters come to be thus populations. Group selection should be overwhelmed characterized.” by selfish behavior. Does reciprocity occur? Very few examples This was a widely accepted idea, adopted for many Hamilton (1964) and Maynard Smith (1964) proposed kin- Wilkinson (1984) and vampire bats explanations in evolutionary ecology for many years...until selection which has essentially replaced group selection the early 1960’s. thinking. And now: Imagine you are a contestant on the The Theory of Kin Selection Kin Selection Game Show The Rules: Kin Selection: A process whereby altruism may be •You are the contestant selected for in a population because it increases the •You are a diploid organism inclusive fitness of the individual doing the altruistic •two copies of the “locus in question” behavior •You score points by “putting individuals into a population” •You get one point for each gene in those individuals that is a copy of one of your genes at the “locus in question” •Your plays are choices between 2 alternatives Wilkinson’s data Example: Choose between from vampire bats (a) putting 50 offspring (from matings with individuals unrelated to you) into the population suggests reciprocal (b) putting 100 individuals that aren’t related to altruism in giving you into the population food (blood meals) reciprocally Belding’s Ground Squirrel between individuals A tougher one: Choose between (a) 10 offspring (from matings with individuals in a group. unrelated to you) (b) 10 full-brothers (i.e. ten more offspring of There are few other both of your parents) examples, though Back to the Game Show: Choose between Surprise: In the second case, the expected gain in points How about r between two full siblings (a) 10 offspring (from matings with individuals Ma Pa is the same for choice (a) and (b). unrelated to you) 12 3 4 (b) 10 full-brothers (i.e. ten more offspring of both of Why? To understand why we need a few more concepts. your parents) Identity by Descent: two genes are said to be identical by descent if they are copies of the same ancestral gene Either choice a or b will give you 5 points. 1 3 14 23 24 Coefficient of relatedness (r): the coefficient of How about: relatedness between two individuals is the expected (a) 4 full brothers proportion of their genes which are identical by descent (b) 4 uncles and 16 first cousins? 4 Possible Genotypes in the Siblings Example: r between a parent and an offspring Probability 1/4 for each. Parent A Parent B Now Consider the Expected Proportion of IBD Coefficients of Relatedness o o between say o o 13 Relationship of Self to: Coeff. of Rel. (r) Self 1.0 One gene from and a randomly chosen One gene from Offspring or Parent 0.5 Parent A Parent B sibling. Full Sibling 0.5 o o = (.25)(1) + (.25)(.5) + (.25)(.5) + .25(0) = .5 Half Sibling 0.25 Uncle/Aunt or 0.25 Nephew/Niece So, r between two full siblings is 0.5 Grandparent or 0.25 Half of the offsprings genes are from either Grandchild parent. Hence r = 1/2. First Cousin 0.125 Back to Biology: The points in the gameshow are Hamilton’s Rule measured in the units of inclusive fitness of your genes Hamilton’s Rule: an altruistic behavior may be Inclusive Fitness = Direct Fitness + Indirect Fitness adaptive if it results in positive inclusive fitness. = (Survival of offspring) x (r for parent-offspring) + (Survival of non-descendant kin) x (the proper r for each Numerical Example: You save the lives of 5 nephews, type of relationship) but in doing so you lose the opportunity to produce two sons. Example calculation of inclusive fitness: Imagine you have 29 offspring. Through your diligent parental care 15 Inclusive fitness = -2(.5) + 5(.25) = .25 survive to reproduce. 5 survive even though you neglected Conclusion via Hamilton’s rule: this could be adaptive them. You give your life in an heroic deed that saves the lives of 8 cousins, 4 nephews and 2 half-sibs who would have died if you hadn’t saved them. Reyer (1984) Your inclusive fitness is: Pied Kingfisher (5 + 15)(.5) + 8(.125) + 4(.25) + 2(.25) = 10 + 2.5 = 12.5 Study Altruism and Inclusive Fitness: altruistic behaviors have costs which are reductions in direct fitness but if they benfit See the reading relatives, the indirect fitness benefits to the altruist may from Alcock for offset the direct fitness costs. details..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Inclusive Fitness As a Criterion for Improvement LSE Research Online URL for This Paper: Version: Accepted Version
    Inclusive fitness as a criterion for improvement LSE Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/104110/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Birch, Jonathan (2019) Inclusive fitness as a criterion for improvement. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C :Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 76. ISSN 1369-8486 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2019.101186 Reuse This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) licence. This licence only allows you to download this work and share it with others as long as you credit the authors, but you can’t change the article in any way or use it commercially. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ [email protected] https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/ Inclusive Fitness as a Criterion for Improvement Jonathan Birch Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom. Email: [email protected] Webpage: http://personal.lse.ac.uk/birchj1 This article appears in a special issue of Studies in History & Philosophy of Biological & Biomedical Sciences on Optimality and Adaptation in Evolutionary Biology, edited by Nicola Bertoldi. 16 July 2019 1 Abstract: I distinguish two roles for a fitness concept in the context of explaining cumulative adaptive evolution: fitness as a predictor of gene frequency change, and fitness as a criterion for phenotypic improvement. Critics of inclusive fitness argue, correctly, that it is not an ideal fitness concept for the purpose of predicting gene- frequency change, since it relies on assumptions about the causal structure of social interaction that are unlikely to be exactly true in real populations, and that hold as approximations only given a specific type of weak selection.
    [Show full text]
  • Sensory and Cognitive Adaptations to Social Living in Insect Societies Tom Wenseleersa,1 and Jelle S
    COMMENTARY COMMENTARY Sensory and cognitive adaptations to social living in insect societies Tom Wenseleersa,1 and Jelle S. van Zwedena A key question in evolutionary biology is to explain the solitarily or form small annual colonies, depending upon causes and consequences of the so-called “major their environment (9). And one species, Lasioglossum transitions in evolution,” which resulted in the pro- marginatum, is even known to form large perennial euso- gressive evolution of cells, organisms, and animal so- cial colonies of over 400 workers (9). By comparing data cieties (1–3). Several studies, for example, have now from over 30 Halictine bees with contrasting levels of aimed to determine which suite of adaptive changes sociality, Wittwer et al. (7) now show that, as expected, occurred following the evolution of sociality in insects social sweat bee species invest more in sensorial machin- (4). In this context, a long-standing hypothesis is that ery linked to chemical communication, as measured by the evolution of the spectacular sociality seen in in- the density of their antennal sensillae, compared with sects, such as ants, bees, or wasps, should have gone species that secondarily reverted back to a solitary life- hand in hand with the evolution of more complex style. In fact, the same pattern even held for the socially chemical communication systems, to allow them to polymorphic species L. albipes if different populations coordinate their complex social behavior (5). Indeed, with contrasting levels of sociality were compared (Fig. whereas solitary insects are known to use pheromone 1, Inset). This finding suggests that the increased reliance signals mainly in the context of mate attraction and on chemical communication that comes with a social species-recognition, social insects use chemical sig- lifestyle indeed selects for fast, matching adaptations in nals in a wide variety of contexts: to communicate their sensory systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Following the Trail of Ants: an Examination of the Work of E.O
    Sacred Heart University DigitalCommons@SHU Writing Across the Curriculum Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) 2012 Following The rT ail Of Ants: An Examination Of The orW k Of E.O. Wilson Samantha Kee Sacred Heart University Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/wac_prize Part of the Biodiversity Commons, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, Entomology Commons, Other Genetics and Genomics Commons, Philosophy of Science Commons, Religion Commons, and the Theory, Knowledge and Science Commons Recommended Citation Kee, Samantha, "Following The rT ail Of Ants: An Examination Of The orkW Of E.O. Wilson" (2012). Writing Across the Curriculum. 2. http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/wac_prize/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) at DigitalCommons@SHU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Writing Across the Curriculum by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@SHU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Samantha Kee RS 299-Writing With Public Purpose Dr. Brian Stiltner March 2, 2012 Following the trail of ants An examination of the work of E.O. Wilson Edward Osborne Wilson was a born naturalist, in every sense of the word. As a child growing up in Alabama, he collected and studied species of snakes, flies, and the insect that became the basis of his life’s work, ants. He made a goal to record every species of ant that could be found in Alabama—a childhood project that would eventually lead to his first scientific publication. By age 13, Wilson discovered a red, non-native ant in a local town in Alabama, and by the time he entered the University of Alabama, the fire ant had become a significant threat to the state’s agriculture.
    [Show full text]
  • Coevolution to the Edge of Chaos: Coupled Fitness Landscapes, Poised States, and Coevolutionary Avalanches
    J. theor. Biol. (1991) 149, 467-505 Coevolution to the Edge of Chaos: Coupled Fitness Landscapes, Poised States, and Coevolutionary Avalanches STUART A. KAUFFMANt and SONKE JOHNSEN Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania and Sante Fe Institute, Sante Fe, New Mexico, U.S.A. (Received on 20 April 1990, Accepted in revised form on 8 August 1990) We introduce a broadened framework to study aspects of coevolution based on the NK class of statistical models of rugged fitness landscapes. In these models the fitness contribution of each of N genes in a genotype depends epistatically on K other genes. Increasing epistatic interactions increases the rugged multipeaked character of the fitness landscape. Coevolution is thought of, at the lowest level, as a coupling of landscapes such that adaptive moves by one player deform the landscapes of its immediate partners. In these models we are able to tune the ruggedness of landscapes, how richly intercoupled any two landscapes are, and how many other players interact with each player. All these properties profoundly alter the character of the coevolutionary dynamics. In particular, these parameters govern how readily coevolving ecosystems achieve Nash equilibria, how stable to perturba- tions such equilibria are, and the sustained mean fitness of coevolving partners. In turn, this raises the possibility that an evolutionary rnetadynamics due to natural selection may sculpt landscapes and their couplings to achieve coevolutionary systems able to coadapt well. The results suggest that sustained fitness is optimized when landscape ruggedness relative to couplings between landscapes is tuned such that Nash equilibria just tenuously form across the ecosystem.
    [Show full text]
  • Fitness Maximization Jonathan Birch
    Fitness maximization Jonathan Birch To appear in The Routledge Handbook of Evolution & Philosophy, ed. R. Joyce. Adaptationist approaches in evolutionary ecology often take it for granted that natural selection maximizes fitness. Consider, for example, the following quotations from standard textbooks: The majority of analyses of life history evolution considered in this book are predicated on two assumptions: (1) natural selection maximizes some measure of fitness, and (2) there exist trade- offs that limit the set of possible [character] combinations. (Roff 1992: 393) The second assumption critical to behavioral ecology is that the behavior studied is adaptive, that is, that natural selection maximizes fitness within the constraints that may be acting on the animal. (Dodson et al. 1998: 204) Individuals should be designed by natural selection to maximize their fitness. This idea can be used as a basis to formulate optimality models [...]. (Davies et al. 2012: 81) Yet there is a long history of scepticism about this idea in population genetics. As A. W. F. Edwards puts it: [A] naive description of evolution [by natural selection] as a process that tends to increase fitness is misleading in general, and hill-climbing metaphors are too crude to encompass the complexities of Mendelian segregation and other biological phenomena. (Edwards 2007: 353) Is there any way to reconcile the adaptationist’s image of natural selection as an engine of optimality with the more complex image of its dynamics we get from population genetics? This has long been an important strand in the controversy surrounding adaptationism.1 Yet debate here has been hampered by a tendency to conflate various different ways of thinking about maximization and what it entails.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Inclusive Fitness Theory, and What Is It For?
    This is a repository copy of What is inclusive fitness theory, and what is it for?. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/110451/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Marshall, J.A.R. orcid.org/0000-0002-1506-167X (2016) What is inclusive fitness theory, and what is it for? Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 12. pp. 103-108. ISSN 2352-1546 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.09.015 Article available under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Reuse This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) licence. This licence only allows you to download this work and share it with others as long as you credit the authors, but you can’t change the article in any way or use it commercially. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ 1 What is inclusive fitness theory, and what is it for? 2 3 James A. R. Marshall 4 5 Department of Computer Science and Department of Animal and Plant Sciences 6 University of Sheffield 7 Regent Court 8 211 Portobello 9 Sheffield S1 4DP 10 UNITED KINGDOM 11 12 Abstract: 13 Inclusive fitness theory is a cornerstone of modern evolutionary biology, yet 14 critics contend it is not general but subject to serious limitations, and is ripe for 15 replacement, for example by multilevel selection theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Methods Offer Powerful Insights Into Social Evolution in Bees Sarah Kocher, Robert Paxton
    Comparative methods offer powerful insights into social evolution in bees Sarah Kocher, Robert Paxton To cite this version: Sarah Kocher, Robert Paxton. Comparative methods offer powerful insights into social evolution in bees. Apidologie, Springer Verlag, 2014, 45 (3), pp.289-305. 10.1007/s13592-014-0268-3. hal- 01234748 HAL Id: hal-01234748 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01234748 Submitted on 27 Nov 2015 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Apidologie (2014) 45:289–305 Review article * INRA, DIB and Springer-Verlag France, 2014 DOI: 10.1007/s13592-014-0268-3 Comparative methods offer powerful insights into social evolution in bees 1 2 Sarah D. KOCHER , Robert J. PAXTON 1Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA 2Institute for Biology, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany Received 9 September 2013 – Revised 8 December 2013 – Accepted 2 January 2014 Abstract – Bees are excellent models for studying the evolution of sociality. While most species are solitary, many form social groups. The most complex form of social behavior, eusociality, has arisen independently four times within the bees.
    [Show full text]
  • The Theory of Inclusive Fitness
    THE THEORY OF INCLUSIVE FITNESS David C. Queller Department of Biology, WasHington University in St. Louis EMAIL: [email protected] A review of SOCIAL EVOLUTION AND INCLUSIVE FITNESS THEORY: AN INTRODUCTION. By James A. R. Marshall. Princeton: Princeton University Press. $39.95. xvii + 195 p. Index. ISBN: 9780691161563. 2015. This is a pre-copyedit version of: Queller, D.C. The theory of inclusive fitness. Book review of "Social Evolution and Inclusive Fitness Theory: An Introduction” by J.A.R. Marshall. Quarterly Review of Biology 91:343-347. 1 W. D. Hamilton was responsible for two major innovations in the early 1960’s (Hamilton, 1964). First, He invented, formalized, and made a strong case for tHe importance of kin selection, tHe idea tHat genetic alleles will be selected in part via their effects on others who share the allele. His otHer main contribution was tHe idea of inclusive fitness, a general and intuitive way of analyzing tHis kind of selection. THougH Hamilton’s ideas Have been Hugely influential, tHere Has been no book focused on the topic of inclusive fitness theory. That gap has now been filled by James MarsHall’s “Social Evolution and Inclusive Fitness THeory”. There are various ways to approach inclusive fitness. MarsHall’s main theoretical approach appeals to me because it is one that I initiated earlier in my career (Queller, 1992), using the Price equation. MarsHall’s Chapter 3 provides a nice introduction to this equation, well worth reading in its own right because of the ever-expanding utility of the Price equation in evolutionary research.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction:Thinking Through Sociality
    Thinking through Sociality THINKING THROUGH SOCIALITY An Anthropological Interrogation of Key Concepts Edited by _ Vered Amit Published in 2015 by Berghahn Books www.berghahnbooks.com © 2015 Vered Amit All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposes of criticism and review, no part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without written permission of the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Amit, Vered, 1955- Thinking through sociality : an anthropological interrogation of key concepts / edited by Vered Amit. pages cm Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-78238-585-1 (hardback) -- ISBN 978-1-78238-586-8 (ebook) 1. Ethnology. 2. Social interaction. 3. Anthropology. I. Title. GN325.A44 2015 302--dc23 2014033522 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978-1-78238-585-1 (hardback) ISBN 978-1-78238-586-8 (ebook) Contents Acknowledgements vi _ Introduction Thinking through Sociality: The Importance of 1 Mid-level Concepts Vered Amit with Sally Anderson, Virginia Caputo, John Postill, Deborah Reed-Danahay and Gabriela Vargas-Cetina 1 Disjuncture: The Creativity of, and Breaks in, Everyday 21 Associations and Routines Vered Amit 2 Fields: Dynamic Configurations of Practices, Games and 47 Socialities John Postill 3 Social Space: Distance, Proximity
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of Cooperation Cooperation Vs
    Cooperation Main points for today Cooperation • Sociality, cooperation, mutualism, altruism - definitions • Kin selection – Hamilton’s rule, how to calculate r Why is it surprising and • Group selection – the price equation, green beards, and assortment how does it evolve • Classic examples – alarm calls, helpers at the nest, social insects, predator inspection, food sharing Definitions ‘Social behavior’ is NOT cooperative behavior Cooperation: Displaying a behavior that benefits another Group living vs. cooperation individual. (If both benefit that's mutualism.) Sociality-no- Altruism: cooperation Displaying a behavior that benefits another and individual at a cost to oneself. cooperation- Sociality/social behavior: no-sociality Living in a group/behavior in interactions with conspecifics I define ‘sociality’ as living with other individuals of the same species at least semi-permanently. Why individuals do not sacrifice themselves The evolutionary mystery for the good of the group How can altruism evolve? • If the recipient of the cooperative/altruistic act benefits, it is going to leave more offspring . • The actor however is not going to leave more offspring, or even fewer offspring – fewer altruists in the next generation . If such behavior is heritable, and it goes on over many generations, it will ultimately die out. 1 The evolutionary mystery Evolution of altruism Altruism: 5 possible Group selection explanations The Price equation : shows how variance partitioned among individuals and groups leads to selection • Group selection
    [Show full text]
  • INCLUSIVE FITNESS and ALTRUISM Psychological Aspects
    Psychological aspects of 1 Running head: INCLUSIVE FITNESS AND ALTRUISM Psychological aspects of adaptations for kin directed altruistic helping behaviors Daniel J. Kruger Daniel J. Kruger, Ph.D. [email protected] www-personal.umich.edu/~kruger Please cite this paper as: Kruger, D. J. (2001). Psychological aspects of adaptations for kin directed altruistic helping behaviors. Social Behavior and Personality, 29, 323-330. Psychological aspects of 2 Abstract A questionnaire study sheds light on the psychological component of kin selecting tendencies predicted by Hamilton’s (1964b) inclusive fitness theory of discriminatory altruistic behavior based on genetic similarity. Participants rated donations of assistance aiding survival and material wealth as more rational and ethical when these actions were performed for closer relatives. Participants also felt a greater obligation to perform these acts for a close relation. A comparison condition where assistance was unlikely to affect survival or reproductive success did not exhibit these tendencies. Psychological aspects of 3 Psychological aspects of adaptations for kin directed altruistic helping behaviors Speculation on altruism reflects on the fundamental character of human nature. Philosophers throughout the ages have debated the question of whether humans actually intend to perform actions that are beneficial to others and costly to themselves, without any clear resolution (Cialdini, Brown, Lewis, Luce, & Neuberg, 1997). Social psychologists continue this debate. Although some argue that the experience of empathy for others leads to truly altruistic actions (Batson et al., 1997), others believe that conditions leading to empathic concern also lead to a greater sense of self-other overlap (Cialdini et al., 1997). Thus, helping others leads to a more favorable mental state because it is at least partially self-directed.
    [Show full text]
  • Sharing of Science Is Most Likely Among Male Scientists Jorg J
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Sharing of science is most likely among male scientists Jorg J. M. Massen1, Lisa Bauer1, Benjamin Spurny1, Thomas Bugnyar1 & Mariska E. Kret2,3 Humans are considered to be highly prosocial, especially in comparison to other species. However, Received: 28 April 2017 most tests of prosociality are conducted in highly artifcial settings among anonymous participants. To Accepted: 25 September 2017 gain a better understanding of how human hyper-cooperation may have evolved, we tested humans’ Published: xx xx xxxx willingness to share in one of the most competitive felds of our current society: academia. Researchers were generally prosocial with 80% sharing a PDF of one of their latest papers, and almost 60% willing to send us their data. Intriguingly, prosociality was most prominent from male to male, and less likely among all other sex-combinations. This pattern suggests the presence of male-exclusive networks in science, and may be based on an evolutionary history promoting strong male bonds. Prosociality has been proposed as a hallmark of humanity1, and studies on prosociality in our closest living relatives have long corroborated the idea that such behavior is uniquely human (e.g.2,3 but see4). A major draw- back is that experimental methods for studying prosociality difer dramatically, particularly between human and non-human studies, and that many experiments lack ecological relevance5. For example, in humans most of these tests are computerized cooperation tasks or public goods games performed in peer groups of college students who anonymously make decisions about an interaction partner they do not know and will never need to interact with in the future.
    [Show full text]